Comey: FBI looked 'hard' for obstruction of justice in Clinton email probe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So essentially ... the FBI looked for criminal activity, hard, and found none.

Great thread!

The funny part is how the conclusion is that MORE things need to be done. The FBI doesn't find anything, but don't let that get in the way of a good witch hunt.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So essentially ... the FBI looked for criminal activity, hard, and found none.

Great thread!

The funny part is how the conclusion is that MORE things need to be done. The FBI doesn't find anything, but don't let that get in the way of a good witch hunt.

I know it's only a few dozen million dollars, small change in terms of government spending (and that in itself is a sad statement), but I wonder how anyone who is in the least bit "fiscally conservative" can justify the blatant waste of the People's money for these purely partisan exercises that aren't making any difference to anyone, anywhere about anything.

Not to mention the gross abuses of government power we see this Republican Congress not only committing, but committing over and over and over again.

Perhaps the FBI needs to look toward the Republican Caucus for it's next obstruction of justice investigation.

I find it amusing that the same people that are on here saying the FBI did a great job and we need to move on are so distrusting of law enforcement when it comes to investigating things like police shootings.

Imagine if an unarmed black man was shot by 5 different cops, all of the evidence such a video footage, statements, ballistics, etc end up being discarded by the police, the people that discarded the evidence and 4 of the cops who shot the man get immunity, and they get to set in the interview with the last officer that wasn't granted immunity.

The investigation admits that the cops lied many times, and that there was wrong doing, but all of the people who did it had immunity. Case closed.

These people would be screaming bloody murder. Yet they cheer this corruption when it favors their political candidate.

Hearing still going on...Issa just revealed Bombshell that the FBI immunity given ALSO covered 'Destruction' of evidence.

I find it amazing that so many on here can't make simple distinctions between subjects that are totally unrelated to each other.

If critiques of Trump are made, HIllary gets brought up. If critiques of the ridiculous overreach of the Republican House investigations are brought up, the red herring of rogue law enforcement gets brought up.

Director Comey has said over and over again that there was ZERO basis for criminal prosecution regarding Clinton's emails and further that to have done so, as so many here and in the Republican Caucus keep crying for, would have been a miscarriage of justice.

Still we equate a deleted email with a unarmed kid getting a bullet in the head from a dirty cop. There is no shame.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hearing still going on...Issa just revealed Bombshell that the FBI immunity given ALSO covered 'Destruction' of evidence.

Mr. Issa must really miss sitting in the big chair.

"Bombshell" .... LOL.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Director Comey has said over and over again that there was ZERO basis for criminal prosecution regarding Clinton's emails and further that to have done so, as so many here and in the Republican Caucus keep crying for, would have been a miscarriage of justice.

That is not what he said. they have admitted that using bleach bit to delete this evidence was illegal, they are now just saying that the granted immunity to the people that committed the criminal actions.

originally posted by: Grambler
I find it amusing that the same people that are on here saying the FBI did a great job and we need to move on are so distrusting of law enforcement when it comes to investigating things like police shootings.

That's because some people understand that the FBI and local police precincts aren't the same things, governed by the same rules and training.

Imagine if an unarmed black man was shot by 5 different cops, all of the evidence such a video footage, statements, ballistics, etc end up being discarded by the police, the people that discarded the evidence and 4 of the cops who shot the man get immunity, and they get to set in the interview with the last officer that wasn't granted immunity.

The investigation admits that the cops lied many times, and that there was wrong doing, but all of the people who did it had immunity. Case closed.

These people would be screaming bloody murder. Yet they cheer this corruption when it favors their political candidate.

Why do I have to imagine this? There are plenty of instances of local murder cases becoming national news where poorly educated fools think they are internet lawyers and try to make pronunciations of guilt based on what they've read in the papers, hear on the news, or read from online news. Hillary's email issue is LITERALLY the same thing. I don't trust a SINGLE internet lawyer telling me that Hillary is guilty. None of you have any access to the real evidence or court transcripts so what the hell do you guys know?

What's REALLY funny is your insistence that I have to imagine something so I can see your bias your way. Sorry, I don't subscribe to the court of public opinion. I subscribe to the Judicial system set up by our Constitution and there is NO part of that system that says that guilt is determined because the public FEELS like the person is guilty. In fact, it is specifically setup so that those things DON'T happen.

Just because you don't want to believe Comey's words doesn't make Hillary guilty.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hearing still going on...Issa just revealed Bombshell that the FBI immunity given ALSO covered 'Destruction' of evidence.

Mr. Issa must really miss sitting in the big chair.

"Bombshell" .... LOL.

Why is that humorous...when Combetta was caught LIVE deleting his posts afterwards?

The FBI didn't find anything??????

Really???

The report I read said Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in the handling of classified information.... that makes her untrustworthy to hold a clearance, and unqualified to be POTUS.


Reading comprehension is great...... FBI found Hillary innocent my butt.

originally posted by: RickinVa
The report I read said Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in the handling of classified information....

Yep, they said that.

that makes her untrustworthy to hold a clearance, and unqualified to be POTUS.

But they never said that. It's just your opinion, and it's not one shared by the FBI.

Comey is rocking it, by the way.

The FBI didn't find anything?????

Really?

How about the FACT that the State Department built two SCIFs in her residences for her use for secure communications...

Hillary chose to ignore all that and go with her personal unsecured Blackberry.

FBI found Hillary Innocent my butt.

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: RickinVa
The report I read said Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in the handling of classified information....

Yep, they said that.

that makes her untrustworthy to hold a clearance, and unqualified to be POTUS.

But they never said that. It's just your opinion, and it's not one shared by the FBI.

Comey is rocking it, by the way.

BS... No one deserves a clearance after being caught with dozens and dozens of classified emails on an unclassified medium.

People lose their clearances for being behind on bills.....Hillary gets to keep hers after being busted.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hearing still going on...Issa just revealed Bombshell that the FBI immunity given ALSO covered 'Destruction' of evidence.

That is completely crazy. Has that type of "immunity" been given to anyone previously? Does the fbi have the dated documentation to back that up?

double post

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So essentially ... the FBI looked for criminal activity, hard, and found none.

Great thread!

The funny part is how the conclusion is that MORE things need to be done. The FBI doesn't find anything, but don't let that get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Comey said that if a state employee did this, they would have been punished internally and possibly fired.

So do you think we should also take his recommendation here? As our employee, should we harshly punish Hillary and fire her as Comey has suggested?

a reply to: Grambler

All the State Department has to do is suspend her clearance and the clearances of those involved.


That would be enough, and that should have been done over a year ago.

a reply to: Grambler

Last I checked being fired isn't the same as being indicted/found guilty and that the actions that can incur firing are up to the discretion of the company doing the firing while being found guilty of a crime follows a specific set of guidelines and procedures laid out by our government. In other words you just compared apples to oranges.

PS: I WOULD fire her by not voting for her; too bad a WORSE candidate (actually just a terrible human being all around) is running against her. Guess I'll have to wait 4 years and hope the right has its act together then.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

Last I checked being fired isn't the same as being indicted/found guilty and that the actions that can incur firing are up to the discretion of the company doing the firing while being found guilty of a crime follows a specific set of guidelines and procedures laid out by our government. In other words you just compared apples to oranges.

No I didn't. My comment there had nothing to do about prosecution. I think Comey and the FBI botched this investigation, and I gave three posts on that effect on this thread.

But the last post was in reference to people like you and others that are quick to say we should take Comeys recommendation.

He says his employee that did this would not be prosecuted, but they would be harshly punished and quite possibly fired. He says Hillary wasn't a state employee, so she he couldn't do this to her.

Hillary works for us The American people. Comey's recommendation is that her employers harshly punish her a possibly fire her. You put so much stock into Comeys recommendation to not prosecute her, so do you also put stock into his recommendation to punish and fire her?


ETA: response to your edit.

PS: I WOULD fire her by not voting for her; too bad a WORSE candidate (actually just a terrible human being all around) is running against her. Guess I'll have to wait 4 years and hope the right has its act together then.

So then you only take some of Comey's recommendations then? Funny, you keep laughing at the rest of us for not taking his recommendations, but you pick and chose when to do so.

a reply to: Grambler

I already answered that in an edit post script in the last post.